Income Levels at Top Colleges (Mini, have you seen this?)

<p>Bigbrother~</p>

<p>I had to pause reading your post at: </p>

<p>"The LACs are a tiny decimal point in the big picture and it's a mistake to make the debate about them. The problem is the in top 20 (maybe top 50?) schools. My reasoning is exactly the same as dstark's:"</p>

<p>I do not see how the problem would be less relevant at a LAC than at one of your top 20-50 schools, which I assume from your differentiation do not include any LACs. </p>

<p>To push the issue further, the issue may not be THAT relevant at UC-Berkeley, if one would consider the impact of the enormous amount of federal money sucked in by the UC-system. There is a huge difference between recycling public funds -be it federal or state- and spending private money that was earned. </p>

<p>To paraphrase Dstark, BigBrother, when I read your posts, it just confirms what I already know, UC Berkeley is the best school in the US that I would never want to attend.</p>

<p>It's not that it's less relevant at an LAC (probably even more relevant), it's that LACs are less relevant themselves. UCLA + UC Berkeley = more students than the top 25 LACs combined. Ideally the LACs would enact economic AA too, but they aren't the first thing to worry about. </p>

<p>Public schools only get a small percentage of their budget from government sources, but I'm not sure what you're getting at there. </p>

<p>Why should we coerce private schools to do anything, even though they aren't getting tax money? Because they are perhaps the most powerful force of social change in our society. Evidence? Affirmative action. By enacting affirmative action policies the colleges themselves <em>admited</em> that they are a powerful forces of social change and have a moral responsibility as such. </p>

<p>And Xiggi, being that you are both from Texas and a Republican, I would commend you on your very smart decision not to apply to UC Berkeley.</p>

<p>ps dstark: go bears!</p>

<p>I'd have to agree Xiggi, except I'd put it slightly differently. I'd say UCB is perhaps the school that most teaches that fringe thinking is conventional thinking.</p>

<p>Bigbrother, the problem with your ideas is that private institutions really are allowed to choose their own priorities. Your thinking works very well for State schools however. You and your peers should be outraged and should be using your bright, opinionated voices to influence the State of Ca. We as citizens have every right to tell State schools what their priorities should be and what we expect of them.</p>

<p>No legacy preference? CA did away with that under pressure years ago (though SBmom, donors kids still mysteriously get in). No AA preference? Ditto. Advantage to the economically disadvantaged? Once again, the people won that one. Let in few out of staters and internationals? Stupid, but the people got their way.</p>

<p>But CA, the best performing of the States where higher educaion is concerned is still doing a pathetic job. The UC's can only accomodate about 10% of the college demand, leaving all others to go to much lesser schools. And among the UCs, only a few are elite in the sense that grads compete with top 25 college grads for the best jobs, or having a good shot at top grad schools. This, bigbrther, is where your anger and efforts should be directed in a non socialist country. And as many pointed out early in this thread, at the public school system which is in early years not preparing kids to succeed.</p>

<p>To tell private entities what to do is a whole different story. Private colleges have their own economic realities. They could have all chosen to remain the preserves of the rich white. Most have not. They have constituents that will walk with their pocketbooks if some things are not preserved, preventing many of the good programs that are in place.</p>

<p>And really bigbrother, it is a major shame that there are no Xiggi's at UCB. What is an education without the full spectrum as so many are asking? But the attitude that you have and that is common at many schools is limiting.</p>

<p>The UCs are, if I understand correctly, responsible for the push for a new SAT that is far more knowledge-based and would certainly work against kids like mine, who are very bright but came out of less than topnotch schools (the ones the original SAT was designed to discover). I can't imagine this new SAT is progressive at all. Now, that's an issue that deserves our attention.</p>

<p>Perhaps UCB teaches that fringe thinking is <em>acceptable</em>? Just because something isn't middlebrow doesn't mean it's wrong. Actually the institution itself doesn't teach anything, a bunch of teachers teach lotsa different things. Some of them are even Republicans! Cal actually has the largest College Republicans group in the nation. That being said, in Berkeley, <em>you're</em> the fringe thinker, zagat. But we probably shouldn't make this just about my school, that's not what this argument is about.</p>

<p>Of course private institutions are allowed to do whatever they want. I'm arguing that they have a moral responsibility to do something. Not that they have to.</p>

<p>"Private colleges have their own economic realities."</p>

<p>Harvard has an endowment of $22.6 billion. The rest of the pack is far behind, but regardless, all of these schools have laughable "economic realities". </p>

<p>CA public education obviously has its faults, esp. lower education. Believe it or not my "anger and efforts" is not limited to a single subject. But perhaps that is just more of my crazy fringe thinking.</p>

<p>Why bigbrother, does an elite school like UCB, with it's huge (compared to Harvard etc.) number of alumni, have such a low endowment?</p>

<p>UCB, and other UCs, have a vast majority of left thinking teachers beacuse they endorse it. While I know you don't speak for the entire student body, your comment about Xiggi spoke volumes. Diverse thinking unwelcome. Yet you believe you have the right to tell private colleges what their moral responsibilities are. No race based AA for one.</p>

<p>So it seems you found your perfect college fit and I'm sure Ziggi has too.</p>

<p>Really, use your moralistic youthful energy to lobby the State. Get your friends to do the kind of campaigning top private schools do to get alumni to fund their endowments. While these small private colleges indeed have influence and make attractive targets, maningful change is out of their hands and in the hands of the States.</p>

<p>Relatively low endowment because UC alum tend to have the attitude that they're contributing already with taxes. It's an attitude that should be fixed. And I do plan to use my youthful energy to try and change these things (...as soon as my classes are over)</p>

<p>UCB, and other UCs, and all of the other colleges in the country have a vast majority of left leaning teachers, because the majority of college teachers are left leaning. That's just a fact... Do you really think there are thousands of right-wing Womens Studies professors who just aren't getting hired because they are right-wing?</p>

<p>This is getting waaay off topic though.</p>

<p>Bigbrother, 60% of the University of California, Berkeley budget is coming from state and federal funds. I'll let you discover which one is the biggest contributor of the two. </p>

<p>Actually, let me spell it out for you:</p>

<p>Although many people think UC gets most of its funding from the State, state support only provides roughly 24% of the University's operating budget. While state funds are crucial to the University's core needs, the federal government is one of UC's largest funding sources, providing nearly 28% of its operating budget. Last year, UC researchers, students and healthcare providers received more than $4 billion from the federal government. </p>

<p>How's that for economic reality?</p>

<p>Research funding is a different subject and that's where most of that federal money is Xiggi. Stanford gets billions from the federal government for research too. That doesn't make it a public school.</p>

<p>From your source:
"Last year, UC researchers, students and healthcare providers received more than $4 billion from the federal government. "</p>

<p>You really think Uncle Sam is paying 4 billion a year just for my undergraduate education? Let's pretend I don't go to UC Berkeley and get back on the real subject, which for the most part is not public schooling.</p>

<p>Selective reading, eh? </p>

<p>Did you miss that one: While state funds are crucial to the University's core needs, the federal government is one of UC's largest funding sources, providing nearly 28% of its operating budget</p>

<p>I posted this mostly in answer to your earlier post that stated "Public schools only get a small percentage of their budget from government sources, but I'm not sure what you're getting at there." Even the Pravda would consider 60% to be a bit larger than a small percentage.</p>

<p>Okay I should have said "the money they spend on undergraduate students" instead of "budget" but regardless you've just wasted time and space with irrelevant, pedantic nitpicking. Thanks cowboy.</p>

<p>Bigbrother, perhaps some research into what's what at UCB makes sense before you sling arrows at other institutions. I really don't know why alumni don't give generously to UCB, but I seriously doubt that it's because they think "they're contributing already through taxes." That would be pretty lame thinking for such smart people. We all pay taxes yet many of us give generously to let our alma maters do good things. It's well known that there's a major correlation between feelings of loyalty and gratitude and giving. Perhaps this is just another indication that the real change needs to happen in State run schools?</p>

<p>You guys really don't want to get back on topic do you? Okay, yes real change needs to happen in State run schools. Real change needs to happen in private schools too. </p>

<p>I have heard the "contributing through taxes" phrase from many UC alums. It's a common attitude. Maybe it's lame thinking from smart people. Or maybe it's almost hypocritical for those who believe strongly in the system of public education to contribute private donations.</p>

<p>That last comment gave me shivers. No wonder we're in trouble.</p>

<p>I've found the subject drift in this thread, which I opened, quite interesting. BigBrother is really living up to his screen name if he thinks he has the right to be topic cop on a thread he didn't open. ;) </p>

<p>Keep it coming, everybody, I appreciate all of your thoughts. Let's keep it civil too, as an example to the younger readers here.</p>

<p>Look I can argue with these guys about the UC system and esp. Berkeley on another thread. There's probably no other subject that I know or care more about. My attempts at getting the topic back to <em>the topic</em> were out of guilt- mostly my fault we turned this into a UC discussion in the first place.</p>

<p>"Okay I should have said "the money they spend on undergraduate students" instead of "budget" but regardless you've just wasted time and space with irrelevant, pedantic nitpicking. Thanks cowboy."</p>

<p>"You guys really don't want to get back on topic do you?"</p>

<p>OK, comrade! </p>

<p>This discussion, for the largest part, has involved the differences in percentage in which lower-income people attend schools. I think it is entirely relevant to analyze how large public schools like Berkeley rearrange their budgets by using state and federal subsidies to keep tuition artifically low. It is one thing to boast about the high percentage of lower-income students at the UC sysyem, and another to get someone else to pick up the tab. If you are interested to what extent the federal givernment subsidizes the UNDERGRADUATE body at Cal, you should refer to the various public documents that are available. Most documents have little graphics for the mathematically challenged. I could quote the exact figures, but that would be just a bit more of pedantic and irrelevant nitpicking. </p>

<p>Da svidaniya!</p>

<p>Okay, go rope up some of them documents pardner.</p>